Colorectal Tumour Microsatellite Instability Test Results: Perspectives from Patients

Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice

Bruce W Morlan⁷  Olga Leontovich⁴  Laurence Burgart⁴  Stephen N Thibodeau⁴  Gloria Petersen⁶  Amber Roche⁵  Sandra Nigon²  Deborah Bowen⁵  Richard Goldberg³  Jeff Sloan¹  Noralane M Lindor² 

[1] Department of Biostatistics, Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota;Department of Medical Genetics, Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota;Department of Oncology, Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota;Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota;Public Health Sciences Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington;Department of Epidemiology, Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota;Department of Cancer Center Statistics, Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota

关键词: psychosocial;    mismatch repair;    MSI;    quality of life;    colon cancer;   

Others  :  813257
DOI  :  10.1186/1897-4287-2-2-69

 received in 2004-04-05, accepted in 2004-05-13,  发布年份 2004

【 摘 要 】

Purpose

To determine which individuals with colorectal cancer (CRC) were interested in knowing the results of their tumour microsatellite instability (MSI) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing. We were also interested in the patients' reasons for choosing to learn their results and in the impact of those results on overall self-assessed quality of life.

Patients and Methods

CRCs from 414 individuals were assayed for MSI and IHC for DNA mismatch repair gene products (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6). Individuals were invited to learn their MSI/IHC results. They randomly received either brief or extended educational materials about the testing and a pretest survey to learn reasons for their interest and to assess their pretest quality of life.

Results

Of the 414 individuals, 307 (74%) chose to learn their results. There was no significant difference in interest in knowing test results according to gender, age, educational level, or family history of colon cancer. The level of detail in the information piece received by the patients did not influence their desire to know their test results. Self-assessed quality of life was not altered by receiving results and was not correlated with the test outcome.

Conclusions

Individuals with colorectal cancer had a high level of interest in learning their individual MSI/IHC test results and did not seem deterred by the inherent complexity or ambiguity of this information. Regardless of test outcome, results did not significantly affect self-assessed quality of life. Further studies are needed to assess comprehension of results and behavioural changes resulting from the learning of MSI/IHC results.

   

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Thibodeau SN, Bren G, Schaid D: Microsatellite instability in cancer of the proximal colon. Science 1993, 260:816-819.
• [2]Thibodeau SN, French AJ, Cunningham JM, Tester D, Burgart LJ, Roche PC, McDonnell SK, Schaid DJ, Vockley CW, Michels VV, Farr GH Jr, O'Connell MJ: Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer: different mutator phenotypes and the principal involvement on hMLH1. Cancer Res 1998, 58(8):1713-1718.
• [3]Dietmaier W, Wallinger S, Bocker T, Kullmann F, Fishel R, Ruschoff J: Diagnostic microsatellite instability: definition and correlation with mismatch repair protein expression. Cancer Res 1997, 57:4749-4756.
• [4]Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR: A national Cancer Institute Workshop on microsatellite instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: Development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 1998, 58:5248-5257.
• [5]Cunningham JM, Kim CY, Christensen ER, Tester DJ, Parc Y, Burgart LJ, Halling KC, McDonnell SK, Schaid DJ, Walsh Vockley C, Kubly V, Nelson H, Michels VV, Thibodeau SN: The frequency of hereditary defective mismatch repair in a prospective series of unselected colorectal carcinomas. Am J Hum Genet 2001, 69:780-790.
• [6]Miyakura Y, Sugano K, Konishi F, Ichikawa A, Maekawa M, Shitoh K, Igarashi S, Kotake K, Koyama Y, Nagai H: Extensive methylation of hMLH1 promoter region predominates in proximal colon cancer with microsatellite instability. Gastroenterology 2001, 121:1300-1309.
• [7]Kane MF, Loda M, Gaida GM, Lipman J, Mishra R, Goldman H, Jessup JM, Kolodner R: Methylation of the hMLH1 promoter correlates with lack of expression of hMLH1 in sporadic colon tumors and mismatch repair-defective human tumor cell lines. Cancer Res 1997, 57:808-811.
• [8]Kuismanen SA, Holmberg MT, Salovaara R, de la Chapelle A, Peltomaki P: Genetic and epigenetic modification of MLH1 accounts for a major share of microsatellite-unstable colorectal cancers. Am J Pathol 2000, 156:1773-1779.
• [9]Cunningham JL, Christensen ER, Tester DJ, Kim CY, Roche PC, Burgart LJ, Thibodeau SN: Hypermethylation of the hMLH1 promoter in colon cancer with microsatellite instability. Cancer Res 1998, 58:3455-3460.
• [10]Kakar S, Burgart LJ, Thibodeau SN, Rabe KG, Petersen GM, Goldberg RM, Lindor NM: Frequency of loss of hMLH1 expression in colorectal carcinoma increases with advancing age. Cancer 2003, 97:1421-1427.
• [11]Lynch HT: Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). Cytogenet Cell Genet 1999, 86:130-135.
• [12]Lindor NM, Burgart LJ, Leontovich O, Goldberg RM, Cunningham JM, Sargent DJ, Walsh-Vockley C, Petersen GM, Walsh MD, Leggett BA, Young JP, Barker MA, Jass JR, Hopper J, Gallinger S, Bapat B, Redston M, Thibodeau SN: Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing in phenotyping colorectal tumors. J Clin Oncol 2002, 20:1043-1048.
• [13]Grunberg SM, Groshen S, Steingass S, Zaretsky S, Meyerowitz B: Comparison of conditional quality of life terminology and visual analogue scale measurements. Qual Life Res 1996, 5:65-72.
• [14]Gudex C, Dolan P, Kind P, Williams A: Health state valuations from the general public using the Visual Analogue Scale. Qual Life Res 1996, 5:521-531.
• [15]Hyland ME, Sodergren SC: Development of a new type of global quality of life scale and comparison and preference for 12 global scales. Qual Life Res 1996, 5(5):469-480.
• [16]Sriwatanakul K, Kelvie W, Lasagna L, Calimlim JF, Weis OF, Mehta G: Studies with different types of visual analog scales for measurement of pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1983, 34(2):234-239.
• [17]Wewers ME, Lowe NK: A Critical Review of Visual Analogue Scales in the Measurement of Clinical Phenomena. Res Nurs Health 1990, 13:227-236.
• [18]Bretscher M, Rummans T, Sloan J, Kaur J, Bartlett A, Borkenhagen L, Loprinzi C: Quality of Life in Hospice Patients: A Pilot Study. Psychosomatics 1999, 40:309-313.
• [19]Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, Syngal S, de la Chapelle A, Ruschoff J, Fishel R, Lindor NM, Burgart LJ, Hamelin R, Hamilton SR, Hiatt RA, Jass J, Lindblom A, Lynch HT, Peltomaki P, Ramsey SD, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Vasen HF, Hawk ET, Barrett JC, Freedman AN, Srivastava S: Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. JNCI 2004, 96(4):261-268.